New Model of Evolution Finally Reveals How Cooperation Evolves

[Shadow Wolf]

Seems very interesting. It seems like they are applying/blending physics, biology, and social psychology. I'm definitely going to have to get around to reading the actual article itself (and kudos that we have free access to it).

Proven means it can be repeated and observed. It has been proven that their is more than one blood type.

I know it's semantics, and it can create some headaches debating it, and I don't even like debating it that much, but terms/concepts such as proof (theory being another one) are not used in science as they are by the layperson. Science proper will generally bend over backwards around glass-encrusted tubes to avoid using the term "proof" or "proven." It is the media looking for ratings and/or just not understanding that claims a scientific research proves something.

 

[omega2xx]

Seems very interesting. It seems like they are applying/blending physics, biology, and social psychology. I'm definitely going to have to get around to reading the actual article itself (and kudos that we have free access to it).

I know it's semantics, and it can create some headaches debating it, and I don't even like debating it that much, but terms/concepts such as proof (theory being another one) are not used in science as they are by the layperson. Science proper will generally bend over backwards around glass-encrusted tubes to avoid using the term "proof" or "proven." It is the media looking for ratings and/or just not understanding that claims a scientific research proves something.

As I have said before , and I will repeat it in case you missed it---Saying science does not prove things is the saddest and most inaccurate things anyone can say not only about. but also about scientists.

All progress in science is built on the backs of what has been PROVEN in the past. Proof and evidence are only dirty words in the theory of evolution.

If you eve need a blood transfusion and the nurse comes to get a sample for testing, tell her not to bother, they can't prove what type you have, so it will just be a waste of time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Saying science does not prove things is the saddest and most inaccurate things anyone can say not only about. but also about scientists.

Want me to mail you some of my science text books that explain this?

 

[sayak83]

@omega2xx
So basically you are completely scientifically ignorant repeating lies of fundamentals quacks of icr. Cool. Not news to me.

Speciation through Mutation explained with evidence in my thread below.
How Speciation Happens (yes it does)

 

[sayak83]

As I have said before , and I will repeat it in case you missed it---Saying science does not prove things is the saddest and most inaccurate things anyone can say not only about. but also about scientists.

All progress in science is built on the backs of what has been PROVEN in the past. Proof and evidence are only dirty words in the theory of evolution.

If you eve need a blood transfusion and the nurse comes to get a sample for testing, tell her not to bother, they can't prove what type you have, so it will just be a waste of time.

Non sense. Science can only provide evidence that make it likely that one has a given blood type but can NEVER EVER PROVE IT.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Non sense. Science can only provide evidence that make it likely that one has a given blood type but can NEVER EVER PROVE IT.

This is where, IMO, the argument breaks down over semantics. I don't remember exactly all the processes and steps and everything involved in typing blood and determining RH factor, but the "proof" could be said to be that blood is successfully transmitted, indicating that a person does have a certain blood type as indicated by the tests devices by science (a sort of spinning separating machine last I knew). But that isn't scientific proof. And of course science needs must always leave some space open and reserved for future observations and discoveries that could renderer what we know today not quite right or totally and utterly useless and obsolete. Makes me wish I could link one of my psych books that basically spent an entire chapter emphasizing and stressing that science doesn't prove, it suggests or indicates or reveals what is probable. The words "prove" and "proven" do not show up until the media cycle, coming from the hands of journalists who may not even understand the actual subject or terminology and assume those pesky smarty pants scientists are speaking a language all of their own.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is pure ignorance of science. Let's see you falsify that there is more than 1 blood type. Do you evo ever use your God' given mind and think about what is being said? You accept the doctrines of your religion , the same way I accept the doctrines of mine---by faith alone.



It is amusing but sad that those who claim evolution has been scientifically proven also say science does not prove things, which is obviously wrong. Then they have the audacity to say creationist don't like science. We have a higher view of real science than you do.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science that has been displayed on numerous threads on this forum. This misunderstanding is on your end. You can continue to just sit there and tell everyone else who actually understands it that they are ignorant and wrong, or you can go out and read and learn and correct your misunderstanding of it. But for you to just sit there stating everyone else is wrong, when it is you that is demonstrably wrong on this, is a waste of time for everyone on this forum. You don't get to tell everyone else that they're ignorant when the ignorant one on this subject is actually you.

P.S. I haven't seen anyone claim that the theory of evolution is "proven." In fact, I see a lot of people avoiding that and instead referring to the fact that science isn't in the business of proofs. Well, except for you, of course.

Enough with this nonsense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I have said before , and I will repeat it in case you missed it---Saying science does not prove things is the saddest and most inaccurate things anyone can say not only about. but also about scientists.

All progress in science is built on the backs of what has been PROVEN in the past. Proof and evidence are only dirty words in the theory of evolution.

If you eve need a blood transfusion and the nurse comes to get a sample for testing, tell her not to bother, they can't prove what type you have, so it will just be a waste of time.

You have multiple people with science degrees explaining to you that science doesn't work in proofs, but they're the ones who are wrong? Okay.

 

[ScottySatan]

OK the paper itself uses a mathematical model that is applicable for physical systems involving energy and spin of magnetic particles and shows that these mathematical techniques can be successfully applied to model coperative-competitive interactions in evolutionary biology. This is useful to know. But it's important to know that

1) The results reproduced here were already known. The novelty is that these mathematical models can elegantly be applied to reproduce these results and shows promise for further applications.

2) Just because the mathematical model is applicable does not mean that the terms have the same physical significance. There was nothing in the system that can be construed as a "magnetic field" or "energy". The techniques are used successfully, but the physical meanings remain biological, not of physics.

This is the take home message everyone should be getting. A model doesn't tell us new stuff, it allows us to make and preliminarily test predictions.

I'll add that the OP link overstates the previous lack of understanding. It's not so much "we don't understand why cooperation exists", as much as, "Based on our observations, our current best mathematical models can't explain some stuff."

 

[sayak83]

This is the take home message everyone should be getting. A model doesn't tell us new stuff, it allows us to make and preliminarily test predictions.

I'll add that the OP link overstates the previous lack of understanding. It's not so much "we don't understand why cooperation exists", as much as, "Based on our observations, our current best mathematical models can't explain some stuff."

It's not the OP, but the media reports which invariably begin with "scientists finally solve mystery X", which is invariably wrong (most papers only add a little to an existing explanation).

 

[ScottySatan]

the media reports which invariably begin with "scientists finally solve mystery X", which is invariably wrong (most papers only add a little to an existing explanation).

Again, you've hit the nail right on the head.

I also don't like the people who say that science "changes its mind". Science didn't, the media said it did. The old data isn't suddenly wrong, unless the scientist who published the original data was lying. We add new variables, new contexts.

 

[omega2xx]

Want me to mail you some of my science text books that explain this?

Why should I read a book that advocates a false premise.

Tell me how we know there is more than one blood type.

Tell me how we know every living things with 2 exception have DNA.

Tell me how we know what the 2 exceptions are.

Tell me how DNA can point to a specific species.

The go burn any book that says science does not prove/disprove things.

That science does prove things is so obvious even cave men can see it.

 

[omega2xx]

Non sense. Science can only provide evidence that make it likely that one has a given blood type but can NEVER EVER PROVE IT.

Evidence does not make something likely. It proves or disproves something. If it does not prove somethng, it is an opinion, not evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science that has been displayed on numerous threads on this forum. This misunderstanding is on your end. You can continue to just sit there and tell everyone else who actually understands it that they are ignorant and wrong, or you can go out and read and learn and correct your misunderstanding of it. But for you to just sit there stating everyone else is wrong, when it is you that is demonstrably wrong on this, is a waste of time for everyone on this forum. You don't get to tell everyone else that they're ignorant when the ignorant one on this subject is actually you.

P.S. I haven't seen anyone claim that the theory of evolution is "proven." In fact, I see a lot of people avoiding that and instead referring to the fact that science isn't in the business of proofs. Well, except for you, of course.

Enough with this nonsense.

Actually anyone who claims science does not prove things has been indoctrinated with something that is so obviously false, that have been deprived of knowing the truth about science.

Tell me how we know there is more than one blood type. Tell me how we know if you if you get the wrong type in a transfusion, you will die.

To deny those those have not been proven is laughable and very sad.

That the TOE has been scientifically proven has been advocated many times in this forum.
That tidbit may come from reading what "Talk Origins" says.

 

[omega2xx]

You have multiple people with science degrees explaining to you that science doesn't work in proofs, but they're the ones who are wrong? Okay.

Wonderful. Let one of them explain how we KNOW there is more than one blood type. I have made that statement many times and not one of them has answered it yet.

Not only is there more than one, several have been identified and classified. If you know your blood type, it is because real science has built a machine that can prove what it is.

To deny the obvious is he result of brain washing and not really evaluating what is said without evidence. Let of of these science experts step up and tell how we know there is more than one blood type, and then falsify my statement. I won't hold my breath.

You can know the truth by answering this question: is there more than one blood type.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wonderful. Let one of them explain how we KNOW there is more than one blood type. I have made that statement many times and not one of them has answered it yet.

Not only is there more than one, several have been identified and classified. If you know your blood type, it is because real science has built a machine that can prove what it is.

To deny the obvious is he result of brain washing and not really evaluating what is said without evidence. Let of of these science experts step up and tell how we know there is more than one blood type, and then falsify my statement. I won't hold my breath.

You can know the truth by answering this question: is there more than one blood type.

They've been trying to explain to you how science operates, but you refuse to take it in. You'd rather rely on creationist bilge, for some reason.

I still think you're a POE, anyway.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually anyone who claims science does not prove things has been indoctrinated with something that is so obviously false, that have been deprived of knowing the truth about science.

Tell me how we know there is more than one blood type. Tell me how we know if you if you get the wrong type in a transfusion, you will die.

To deny those those have not been proven is laughable and very sad.

That the TOE has been scientifically proven has been advocated many times in this forum.
That tidbit may come from reading what "Talk Origins" says.

Funny how everyone educated on the subject seems to understand it, except for you. Everyone educated on the subject has tried to explain it to you numerous times. If it were me, I'd take that to mean there was something I was misunderstanding and I'd probably look into it some more. Not you though. Hey, to each his own, I guess.

 

[sayak83]

Evidence does not make something likely. It proves or disproves something. If it does not prove somethng, it is an opinion, not evidence.

Absolutely false. Evidence can never prove or disprove something, it can only make something more or less likely to be true. That is the one and only thing evidence can ever do. Basic epistemology.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Fortunately, the truth of evolutionary biology doesn't rely on semantical nitpicking and hand-waving.

 

[sayak83]

Actually anyone who claims science does not prove things has been indoctrinated with something that is so obviously false, that have been deprived of knowing the truth about science.

Tell me how we know there is more than one blood type. Tell me how we know if you if you get the wrong type in a transfusion, you will die.

To deny those those have not been proven is laughable and very sad.

That the TOE has been scientifically proven has been advocated many times in this forum.
That tidbit may come from reading what "Talk Origins" says.

You are completely wrong. Most things I know are not subject to proof at all. They are simply the most likely to be true given the evidence one has compared to alternative proposition. I know proposition X if, given all evidence E, Probability that X is true P(X) is much greater than probability that X is false P(X'). Thus roughly X is known to be true if P(X|E) >>P(X'|E). For people actually interested in how science works from evidence to determining which hypothesis about reality is likely to be true, see link below.
Hypothesis Testing